Baptism not nessecary

[Valtiel]

I can’t get rhough to this guy, and I’m not that expirienced to get around his arguments either…
Centurionoflight:

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, “For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior” (or even “to lead people to faith”). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

14 **I thank God that I baptized none of you **except Crispus and Gaius,

15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

HE is there to preach the Gospel, not baptize.
You see the Corenthian Church was being Foolish.

People was going after diddfent “Denominations” rather than focus on Christ…

12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

Baptism doesnt Save.
Joh 3:16 Belief On Christ is salvation, not some bath.

And you cannot obviously ignore John 3:5 “truly, truly I say unless one is born again of WATER and SPIRIT, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”

One can understand the passage.,
It is not speaking of baptism.

4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old?** He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”**

5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water{The Womb} and the Spirit he cannot enter into (I)the kingdom of God.

6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh,{the WOMB} and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Hence the water of John 3 is the water of birth…not baptism.

Water Baptism is a teaching tool that was used to show the baptism of the sprit.

1 Cor 12:13

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to **drink of one Spirit. **

That was it.
Nothing more.

 

[Vincent]

Your friend wrote:

“Baptism doesnt Save.”

Oh, really?

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all that guy is way off. Dont stop there go through Acts and see many Baptisms.

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

[Contarini]

Valtiel,

On I Cor. 1 and John 3:16, he’s simply asserting with no evidence that faith and baptism are somehow opposed to each other. Make him prove this. John 3:16 doesn’t say that baptism doesn’t save. He’s assuming that belief in Christ somehow excludes a salvific role for baptism. John 3:16 also doesn’t mention repentance–but other passages in Scripture clearly do.

The business about the “water” of John 3:5 meaning birth is also without foundation. Make him show you some support in the rest of Scripture for this odd way of speaking. Jesus does not say “unless you are not only born of water but also born of the Spirit,” which would support his interpretation. The most obvious way of reading the verse is that Jesus is giving two conditions–that “water” is linked with Spirit-birth rather than natural birth. When I first encountered this interpretation (in Surprised by Truth) I was mad at the Catholic convert who was recounting it, because I thought it was a cheap shot at Protestantism, taking some really kooky interpretation and presenting it as if it was the norm. I’d never encountered it in my twenty-one years of living among evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants. But I’ve since discovered that lots of people do hold it. It makes no sense to me whatever, but you probably can’t prove this to him. You are ill advised to shoulder the burden of proof in arguments like this. It seems clear to me that Scripture (even without reference to Tradition) teaches that baptism is salvific. But you will have trouble proving it to someone entrenched in contrary presuppositions. You’ll do better by pointing out to him that you read Scripture through the lens of Tradition, and that to convince you he needs to show you that Scripture and Tradition are in conflict here. He hasn’t even begun to do any such thing.

Of course, it all depends on who is trying to convert whom. I think trying to convert people by argument is a really bad idea. Apologetics should be about defending the Faith and pointing out that it is not unreasonable or contrary to Scripture. You should let the Holy Spirit do the rest–even if the Holy Spirit takes years and years (I speak as someone who has been considering Catholicism for ten years and still can’t make up his mind). Of course, you may also succeed in making him see some problems with his current way of thinking. But I wouldn’t make that your main goal. Just two cents of unsolicited advice . . . .

Edwin

 

[Ecce_Homo]

My first thoughts are that St. Paul is not saying he is glad the Corinthians were not baptized. Rather, he is glad that he was not the one performing the baptism. Why would he be glad of this?

The answer is given in verses 10 - 12:

10 - Now I bessech you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment

11 - For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 - Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.

In other words, it seems St. Paul is glad he did not baptize many of them so they would not think themselves followers of St. Paul but followers of Christ. St. Paul was concerned that the Corinthians would form groups which opposed one another–groups whose membership included those baptized by the same person. St. Paul was concerned that contentions would arise between Christians he baptized and Christians baptized by others.

St. Paul, it appears, felt *his own *responsibility was preaching rather than baptism. This does not mean that the Corinthians should not be baptized, but that he felt other Church leaders, in lower positions than himself, should have that responsibility–lest any man boast. At least this is how it appears to me. (This might be a good question for “Ask and Apologist”.)

Concerning Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus, your friend conveniently left out the word “again”:

“truly, truly I say unless one is born again of water and spirit , one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”

If Christ had said “born of water and the Spirit” or even “born of water and again of the Spirit”, then your friend’s argument might have some validity–but Christ did not! In the statement, water is part of being born again.

I’m sure others on this forum can answer you better than I, but this should be a start.

God bless